Ecological soil mapof the AlpsA cross-border pilot area between Italy and Slovenia

Sara ZanollaStefano BarbieriGiuseppe MicheluttiBorut Vrščaj

Why a cross-border pilot area?To provide a first information on the

main characteristics of alpine soils and their priority threats: organic carbon content erosion risk

with a grid based approach to minimise the “border effects”

The pilot area

SLO

I

The pilot area

SLOFVG

The pilot area

SLO

FVG

The pilot area

DIMENSIONS 400 km2

SHAPE Rectangular in LAEA, matching the INSPIRE grid

1X1 km

ENVIRONMENT Julian Pre-AlpineALTITUDE (min-max) 30-900 mAVERAGE SLOPE 15-60%

The pilot area

The pilot area

The pilot area

SLO

FVG

The pilot area

SLO

FVG

The pilot area

SLO

FVG

The pilot area

SLO

FVG

Cross-border 1:1M soil database

WRB_full

Cross-border 1:1M soil database

Mat_par_dom

Cross-border 1:1M soil database

Aglim1

Towards a common soil map

Steps towards a common soil map

Definition of the pilot area in LAEA; Exchange of the national projection files (*.prj); Conversion of the data in the national projection systems;

Choice of a minimum set of ancillary data layers (DTMs, land use maps, annual rainfall,…) and common legends;

Joint field work; Excavation and description of soil profiles; Discussion and decisions on soil-landscape

relationship; Elaboration of vector databases with available

soil information and ancillary datasets; Elaboration of attribute tables

To b

eco

nti

nued.

..

Steps towards a common soil map

Exchange and revision of the preliminary vector data and tables;

Border edge-matching; Common review of the attribute tables; Rasterization at different resolutions INSPIRE; Elaboration of the databases; Elaboration of the final maps and report.

Steps towards a common soil map

Definition of the pilot area in LAEA; Exchange of the national projection files (*.prj); Conversion of the data in the national projection systems;

Choice of a minimum set of ancillary data layers (DTMs, land use maps, annual rainfall,…) and common legends;

Joint field work; Excavation and description of soil profiles; Discussion and decisions on soil-landscape

relationship; Elaboration of vector databases with available

soil information and ancillary datasets; Elaboration of attribute tables

To b

eco

nti

nued.

..

Steps towards a common soil map

Exchange and revision of the preliminary vector data and tables;

Border edge-matching; Common review of the attribute tables; Rasterization at different resolutions INSPIRE; Elaboration of the databases; Elaboration of the final maps and report.

ECALP field excursion (Spring 2005)

Steps towards a common soil map

Steps towards a common soil map

Some attributes need harmonisation: aglim 1 il roo …others need comparison: agri_use wm1 ...others have to be integrated: sur_urb px_obs ...

Steps towards a common soil map

Soils in our pilot area, often have a lithic (or paralithic) contact within observation depth; but, usually, water can infiltrate and roots can explore soil in the cracks.

Some lithic contacts can also be a root deepening limitation or/and impermeable layer, some others don’t.

We suggest not to use lithic contact as synonym of root limitation or impermeable layer.

Steps towards a common soil map

Steps towards a common soil map

Some attributes need harmonisation: aglim 1 il roo …others need comparison: agri_use wm1 ...others have to be integrated: sur_urb px_obs ...

Steps towards a common soil map

Steps towards a common soil map

Steps towards a common soil map

In our soil maps we don’t have polygons for urban areas and

soil sealing is represented superimposing the topography.

In urban areas the equation:SUR-BARE + SUR-URB + W-BODY + STU-TOT = 100

becomes:0 + 100 + 0 + 0 = 100How do we fill the pixels where SUR-URB

is more than 50%?

Steps towards a common soil map

Other attributes are affected by the same problem, such as WM1 and WM2. The information provided could be generally true for the dominant STU, but doesn’t fit in the pilot area.

Then, the water management system lists mainly voices for plain agricultural soils. In mountainous or hilly areas, different methods would be used.

Would it be possible to add new water management systems (in the format or in a further version of the manual)?

Steps towards a common soil map

Some attributes need harmonisation: aglim 1 il roo …others need comparison: agri_use wm1 ...others have to be integrated: sur_urb px_obs ...

Steps towards a common soil map

We filled the field for the pixels marked I and I/SLO according to Corine Land cover 1995, with the classes:

1.1.1 Continuous urban fabric1.1.2 Discontinuous urban fabric1.2.1 Industrial or commercial units1.2.2 Road and rail networks1.2.3 Port areas1.2.4 Airports1.3.2 Dump sites1.3.3 Construction sites1.4.1 Green urban areas1.4.2 Sport and leisure facilities

Steps towards a common soil map

The total area has been assigned to the pixel. It has been discovered that, since the field allows 2 characters only, it’s not possible to indicate a 100% coverage by urban area. We used 99% instead.

The same procedure has been used for sur_bar and w_body

WRB codes

CMeuCMskdyFull soil

code WRB-FULL

CMCMSoil Refer.

Group WRB-LEV1

sk2nd soil adjective

WRB-ADJ2

eudy1st soil

adjective WRB-ADJ1

Exchange format current version:

WRB codes

CMeuCMskdyFull soil

code WRB-FULL

CMCMSoil Refer.

Group WRB-LEV1

eusk1st soil

adjectiveWRB-ADJ1

dy2nd soil

adjective WRB-ADJ2

Our proposal:

THANKS FOR YOUR ATTENTION